(^)
- EW OK, uDiase Newlog ton's second Code Comments
and llaw... [wookrites at their ow this while Jn papersV an.] d SV talk^ C New Episode
those th64. JV Donings then?...u't we have to wmm, all thrite dowe forcesn
of torquthat? e equal, what are these? What's
AC
RQCl
exhibit wThis is a claimhat is alm relatedost an to th obsessioe strategn withy. T thhey e
details oClarificatiof thn e strategy. RQCl = Request for- SV T66. SV Tau? au equals L times. MCCl Modifies the AC in 64.
tim67. Jes... V Oh, yeah, moment arm^ W They use very few warrants. - SV Whtension? at is the other one, RQCl
is, right69. JV T? he force, whatever force it MC This coclear if JV is thuld relate toinking of either 6 EW3 or 64. It is n’s statement ot
aboutorque. Sint the Seconce md Law, or SV’uch of this group’s s idea about
conversatioprobably is thn is be latter. etween SV and JV, it - SV So is it L times f? RQCl
Table 4-5. Group 4C, Episode 7&8, Lines 63-70.
Two factors seem to have shaped this group’s dynamic. First, the seating
arrangement inhibited face-to-face interaction (see page 88). Second, member SV
effectively socially dominated the group with her forceful style. These two factors
resulted in a very dysfunctional group. There is no direct creative conflict occurring in
this group. All challenges are essentially covert. Their individualistic decision making
process is further evidence of their lack of consistent co-construction.
Controversy Model of Decision Making
The Johnson model of controversy suggests a process that repeats until the group
reaches a decision (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991; Johnson and Johnson, 1987).
The cyclic nature of the process is seen in Figure 4-4 (p.146), Process of Controversy
(Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991; p. 7:7, reproduced with permission). Several